Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 15 Sep 2020

      Study suggesting 60,000 more Australians may have had covid without being tested puts to bed the argument that routine testing and contact tracing on its own stops the virus spreading, does it not? Masks needed, and lockdown best way to stop spread 😷https://www.smh.com.au/national/60-000-more-people-may-have-had-covid-19-than-detected-study-20200915-p55vx8.html …

      8 replies 68 retweets 180 likes
    2. Cameron Jackson‏ @orpheuseurydice 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Vic_Rollison

      Yes, good point, if it were true, it wouldn't mean we should all abandon PH measures I am not inclined to take the claims as reported in that study at face value, though. Small sample size. Antibody test which records false positives. Extrapolation compounds error. = Unreliable.

      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
    3. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @orpheuseurydice

      Even if it’s half reliable it’s evidence of much undetected spread. Interesting to see result of Kirby study.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    4. James Van Dyke‏ @JamesUVanDyke 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Vic_Rollison @orpheuseurydice

      Half reliability isn't really the way it works. A study is either reliable or it isn't.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    5. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @JamesUVanDyke @orpheuseurydice

      I haven’t looked at the paper itself, just the Age report. But wouldn’t the only way the entire study be contradicted is if the antibody test literally didn’t work?

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Cameron Jackson‏ @orpheuseurydice 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Vic_Rollison @JamesUVanDyke

      The Age report contains all the info needed to conclude that no firm conclusions can be drawn from the study. 41 of 2991 tested +ve to antibodies to the virus. False +ve rate of test = 1.09. Article itself says sample size is too small to make confident estimate; understatement!

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    7. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @orpheuseurydice @JamesUVanDyke

      They’ve probably used largest sample they had access to - convenience sample of hospital admissions so not universalisable. I have no idea what sample would be needed to make the results definitive, but I do know opinion polls infer 16 million voters by surveying only 1,200 🤷🏼‍♀️

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Cameron Jackson‏ @orpheuseurydice 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Vic_Rollison @JamesUVanDyke

      Yes. The fact that it is too small a sample size would be a qualification made by the authors of the study themselves. Equally problematic is the false +ve rate for antibodies. 9 in 100, ie nearly 10% are false +ves. This error is amplified if you extrapolate.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    9. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @orpheuseurydice @JamesUVanDyke

      If 10% are false positives, then the study is still 90% accurate so still shows a large amount of undetected spread.

      3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Sep 2020
      Replying to @Vic_Rollison @orpheuseurydice @JamesUVanDyke

      That is incorrect. With prevalence of 2 in 1,000, 10% false positives means that 998 tests will pick up 99 false positives, 2 tests will be true positive, for a rate of 2% positive predictive value (or 2% 'accurate')

      11:36 PM - 15 Sep 2020
      • 1 Like
      • James Van Dyke
      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        1. James Van Dyke‏ @JamesUVanDyke 15 Sep 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @Vic_Rollison @orpheuseurydice

          Thanks for that great explanation. I always have trouble wrapping my head around conditional probabilities and how to explain them.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. Cameron Jackson‏ @orpheuseurydice 16 Sep 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @Vic_Rollison @JamesUVanDyke

          Dr Coatesworth says the model estimates “somewhere between 0-185,000 cases”. I don’t think I’d base any policy decisions on that!pic.twitter.com/VjoGcttFNY

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Dr Queen Victoria‏ @Vic_Rollison 16 Sep 2020
          Replying to @orpheuseurydice @GidMK @JamesUVanDyke

          Somewhere between 0-185,000, but everyone just hopes it’s zero and moves on. They found undetected spread - double tested positives to make sure. So much wishful thinking going on. 40% asymptomatic. Easy to see how undetected spread happens.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info